Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt

from the quoth-the-righthaven dept

Well, well. In the early days of the "funniest/most insightful" posts, it wasn't that uncommon to have a single comment place pretty high (or even win) both categories. However, more recently there's been a clear separation, and I can't even remember a single comment getting into the top 10 (or possibly even the top 20) in both categories in months. But every week is full of surprises, and this week, it seems the Techdirt community unified behind one comment, and it easily won both categories, with the second place player far behind on each list. So, congratulations Jay, for breaking out your inner Edgar Allan Poe for the following poem in response to Righthaven's massive legal loss in Nevada:

As we sit among this midnight weary, seeing the storm so dark and dreary,
The cloud that looms like clouds along the distant shore.
I was nodding, not quite napping, holding covers closer, wrap, wrap, wrapping.
Go to a keyboard, with a tap, tap, tapping, facing my chamber door.
I glanced on the internet for the Righthaven score.
I search for their stories, nothing more.

I read the stories from December, about seizures I can't quite remember...
Along with lawsuits that brought tears galore.
Such was the likes of Righthaven, even FUDBuster, who thought himself a maven,
"This suing potential does not need savin'!", tapping, tapping near my chamber door.
"Tis the truth, Sirrah." he implored. "The truth and nothing more!"

Ah, distinctly I remember, Righthaven lawsuits in November.
Their business model was weakening, bleeding on the floor.
Eagerly they wished for tomorrow, to extend their distasteful sorrow,
intent, now intent on reaching for the door.
The storm clouds reached for the shore,
Righthaven had determination, it seemed, forever more.

But as we see it merrily true, their model of business is run through.
Their model lays skewered, impaled as if by a boar.

"Ah sirrah, you are mistaken, here you are, have more bacon,
The route you have undertaken, Lies broken like a ship on the shore.

Your business model and intimidation are no more.

And so, like the Raven, of Poe's lore, I say and quote...

Nevermore"

Bravo! Now, can you top that next week?

Coming in second on the insightful list (by a single vote over third place!) was a comment from lavi d on a different Righthaven post. This one concerned the question of whether or not those who had already settled with Righthaven might now seek their money back. That post ended with a quote from Steve Gibson, CEO of Righthaven, which quite clearly suggested that anyone who came seeking their money back might be targeted in new lawsuits. lavi pointed out another potential legal issue in the other direction:

“The statute of limitations,” he said, “is three years for copyright infringement.”

What is it for fraud?

For editor's choice, we have two other top scoring comments. First up, was one from an Anonymous Coward, talking about the rise of internet hacking and/or vigilante groups such as Lulzsec and Anonymous (even if those two now hate each other). Despite all the attention, this AC wanted to put it all in perspective:

I'm fascinated, appalled, and kinda...psyched about these groups, strange as it may sound. Even stranger - I, personally, don't feel any great fear of them. Maybe I should, I don't know. But my gut isn't telling me I should. I don't get that twist at the pit of my stomach like I do when I read about banks foreclosing on mortgages they don't own, laws being considered like COICA or PIPA, or whatever round of TSA bullshittery is happening this week.

I fear my government and its actions far more than I fear anything like Anonymous or Lulzsec. Is that weird? Or does my gut know better than my brain?

And, finally, we a comment from a new community member, going by the name LadyMacbeth, responding to the odd compulsion a particular commenter on this site has. That commenter, while anonymous, is a self-confessed DC "policy circle" insider, who is deeply involved in getting things like PROTECT IP turned into law. His commenting style is to be about as insulting as possible, and lately he keeps trying to associate anyone who doesn't support PROTECT IP as being child porn supporters. It's these sorts of smear campaigns that are the reason why people hate politicians. I mean, there's simply no having a serious discussion on the issues with someone like that. That particular Anonymous commenter has been trying to exploit the child porn issue, but claiming that by even just bringing up the famous case of CDT v. Pappert (pdf), in which a very poorly thought out internet filtering bill was declared unconstitutional due to its massive unintended collateral damage, it means you approve of child porn. For anyone aware of the case, this is a preposterous and obnoxious claim, but apparently this commenter thinks it makes for good smear material (though, it really just seems to suggest a lot more about this particular person). Either way, Lady Macbeth decided to take him down with some facts and logic:

It appears to me--:) although I'm new here so I could be wrong-- that child porn is the AC watchword-- One thing has nothing to do with the other, it's simply bullshit rhetoric designed to be as inflammatory and as diversionary as possible and it's working.

AC has no clear and defensible argument. Even if the site DOES make money from the posting of those links.. it is clearly a discussion board/index of sorts.. and we could argue that Google is much more so. Albeit they are an index,they are also a chat software, and google docs are being used to link to things that are in violation too.. we could make the argument... could you find all 12 million Warez sites if you couldn't google them and get there to get your free/stolen/pirated software. It's all in how you see it, but since Google is pretty much sacrosanct, I'm guessing we won't see any infringement suits over their warez ihdexing and illegal download links.

The entire proceeding--hijacking sites-- is as unconstitutional as it gets, and child porn has nothing to do with it. In fact. I bet you can FIND child porn sites out there that aren't being seized.. the reality is that the media companies are holding the government by the throat because they are big donation factories LOL.

Realistically, if you REALLY even care about child pornography, then consider this... probably a thousand child porn sites escaped notice because the ICE was too wrapped up in kissing the corporate @ss and pulling down a few illicit tv show links..

As a Pennsylvanian who looked pretty closely at the child porn issue, it wasn't only an issue of child porn and thank goodness the judge was smart enough to know that.

You can not seize a property without due process. With no advance notice, no commentary at all, it sets a very dangerous precedent. Your website IS personal property or business property. It should be subject to the same protections under the law that your home is. Once we allow ANY property to be seized without notice, we open a door that should not be opened.

If free speech and a few links offends you,make you cry wolf.. or in your case.. child porn... I'm guessing you're part of some lock stepping media company,who pays you to suppress your common sense because people who do even a modicum of their own thinking, realize that sometimes you question the government and challenge their behavior--when it's wrong, it's wrong.

Moving over to the funny side of things, as you know, Jay's comment already swept the awards for that, but coming in second place was MrWilson's initial response to my post about Righthaven's big copyright loss. Wilson saw my biases clearly:

Geez Masnick, why do you consistently come out in praise of judges who rule against copyright extortionists?!?

Why do you support taking the caviar from the mouths of their children?

Just one editor's choice this week, because I like to shake things up that way. This one comes from DannyB, who channeled some Joseph Heller in explaining how it was that ICE assistant director Erik Barnett could pretend that no owners of seized domains were challenging the seizures, despite knowing that the owners of five domains have been trying to challenge the seizures. ICE spokespeople had explained that Barnett meant one kind of challenge, as opposed to the challenge that's actually being done. This didn't make sense to me, but DannyB broke it down:

Any average asylum inmate can easily explain this. Barnett did not misspeak.

Barnett is talking specifically about the type of challenges that count as having been filed. That's what the seized domain owners are failing to file. Instead the seized domain owners are filing the type of challenge Barnett is not talking about, specifically, challenges that do not count as having been filed.

None of these challenges have any specific type of name or designation. The process for filing a challenge does not allow you to select which type of challenge you wish to file: either
(1) the type that counts as having been filed, or
(2) the type that does not count as having been filed.
If you file a challenge of the 2nd type, it doesn't count and Barnett is still correct and did not misspeak.

Once the seized domain owners actually file the first type of challenge that Barnett is talking about (the ones that count as having been filed) rather than any other type of challenge (the ones which do not count as having been filed) then those challenges will count as having been filed.

It all makes sense.

I hope that cleared it up.

(don't think about it too much or you may end up in an asylum yourself.)

Indeed. It does give me plenty to think about. And you too. Or you can start thinking about next week's comments. Until then...

Typical

For anyone aware of the case, this is a preposterous and obnoxious claim, but apparently this commenter thinks it makes for good smear material (though, it really just seems to suggest a lot more about this particular person).

And, I would say, it also says a lot about the type of people pushing things like PROTECT IP in general. They rely on lies upon lies to sell it. It's really the only choice they have since the truth would work against them.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Typical

Well, rape, murder, child porn, and drugs is one thing. Those, we can gloss over because they don't involve profits. But copyright infringement, that is just riddled with unspeakable evil and it kills babies. Apparently, ground up, aborted fetuses make for good narcotics for when you're watching "Bambi" illegally. It makes the death and loss seem more "real". It beats 3D glasses hands down!

Re: Typical

Unfortunately the whole thing reminds me too much of the Australian internet filtering proposal where any person opposing the 'benevolent Government filter' was automatically labelled a paedophile and child porn supporter...

Re: Re: Re: Typical

yes imprison the people who actually have the ability to use a computer intelligently. then put people who probably could not spell the word computer in a public office. then have people who are not capable of developing a decent business plan hire people who know even less about computers than the people in public office to write a bill that gets rid of stuff on the internet that will invariably cause severe collateral damage and still not get the stuff they are trying to get rid of off the internet. then once people complain about it claim they are trying to destroy the artists lively hood. win 1 case out of 10,000 when you sue them. take all of that money and use it to attempt to win more cases and waste all of it. did i explain what you are trying to do better?

Re:

IP maximists are so unsophisticated. When they can't formulate a decent counterargument, they resort to insults instead. They're like primitive territorial dogs that simply attack anything and everything in their sights attempting to claim ownership of anything they can get their paws on. They want more unowed monopoly rents, no matter how much they have they always want more, and they bark at anyone that doesn't give them everything they want. Logic is not important, bark bark bark bark bark.

Re:

No, that's just trying to cut off funding to websites based on nothing but an industry's say-so with the goal of censoring it. That's not responsible. That's passing judgement without any understanding, due process, or evidence. There's a difference between "enable" and "perpetrate". Learn them.

enable: to provide with the means or opportunity

perpetrate: to produce, perform, or execute; to carry out or enact

People who enable, provide possibilities. Those who perpetrate carry out those possibilities. Example: "The Pirate Bay enables copyright infringement, but it's users are the people whom perpetrate it." To imply that enabling is equal to perpetrating, is to imply that all tools that provide the means to do things which do not generate profit for the rights holder is wrong. There is nothing wrong with sites like "The Pirate Bay" because they do enable beneficial uses that have nothing to do with infringement. TPB does not, itself, infringe on copyright merely by its existence, but by it's users whom are the ones that are truly responsible for the infringement. Just because the removal of sites like TPB would greatly reduce the options for those wish to infringe, does not mean it's justified to try to eliminate it. If you can't effectively go after individuals who violate copyright doesn't mean you get to demonize and criminalize sites that enable infringement that are actually perpetrated by its users.

Re:

Re: Re: Re:

"Passing judgement without understanding, due process, or evidence? That sounds a lot like Anonymous and Lulzsec."

So what? That has nothing to do with, nor has any bearing on, what I just said. Calling a file-sharing site a "pirate" site is like calling a hammer a murdering tool. Subsequently acting on that false accusation by seizing it without evidence nor due process is a violation of human rights. Not to mention, it's a perversion of the justice system. You can't just waggle your finger at a site sharing files, call it a "pirate" site, and then expect to have the authority take it down.

Lulz isn't concerned with passing judgement. They just hack sites arbitrarily, it has nothing to do with judgement. They're just vandals, but vandals who have shown us that we can't trust the companies that were hacked. Anon may be passing judgement, but they're not trying to label those they protest against as criminals. They are also not acting without evidence and a protest is not a part of, nor limited by, due process. They can protest anyone they want if they feel they need to. Trying to shut down, censor, or seize websites without evidence nor due process is what the copyright industries do.

"But recognizing that would upset the mealy cacophony that passes for logic here."

You wouldn't know logic if it bit you in the ass. Yours is obviously flawed and warped.

Re:

Um, no. An advertising firm would be one of the first entities to happily dance the corporate party tune and try to get people back onto the good, clean, God-fearing "main" internet... this isn't much of a revolution. Assuming they do actually believe these websites are the Tortuga's of the web whose visitors firmly abhor paid consumerism, why advertise there? Rather like putting up Christian dating site stickers at a peep show parlor. I don't remember seeing many Ford ads the last time I went to torrent sites... maybe I just wasn't paying attention.

GroupM is well within their rights to blackball sites that involve an independently useful and morally impeccant software application. It's their fractions of pennies after all. Maybe unlike the rest of us reprehensible skells, they don't want to promote the spread of child porn.

Re:

Re: Re:

Unsophisticated? Who do you think is getting the laws passed that you spend your days wringing your hands over? You go ahead and sit in front of your computer thinking of pithy remarks. By the time you're done, the laws will be passed and you'll still be sitting there wondering what happened.

Re: Re:

What is unsophisticated about it? DannyB was nowhere to be seen in the past, suddenly his stuff is the editor's choice for best comments, and he is doing the weekly best (which wasn't a weekly best at all). He appears to be the apple of the teacher's eye this week.

If things follow like they have in the past, he will soon be actually contributing posts (aka, adding more slanted material to the pile), just as the Tims have done.

Jay, as you know I have argued until I am blue in the face. At this point, I don't find it particularly necessary to hash and rehash. I understand Greevar's point, it's been argued for years. And so has my rebuttal. He'll never be swayed by me, nor I by him. What matters is that the Protect IP Act and Felony Streaming bill are moving forward. Now, if you will excuse me a have to go and twirl my mustache before I tie a piracy apologist to the train tracks.

Re:

"What matters is that the Protect IP Act and Felony Streaming bill are moving forward."

What matters is that us tyrants will get our way regardless of whether we are right or wrong. We get our way whether the population likes it or not. Truthfulness and the merits of these proposed laws play no part in this.

Re: Re:

Group M is the first of the ad networks. Mastercard is first among payment processors. Soon, either voluntarily or by the passage of law all US-based ad networks AND payment processors will be unavailable as resources to facilitate piracy. These site operators better start thinking about how to buy groceries with Bitcoins, because that's about all that will be left (assuming Bitcoin doesn't belly up first).

Re: Re:

Us big corporations write the laws, the government enforces them, and you're going to have to deal with that. Our current pro-IP laws are completely one sided and unfair, they're very oppressive, they create income inequality in our favor, they're not in the public interest at all, but that's tough. This isn't a democracy because we write the law and the public simply has no choice.

Re: Re:

Truthfulness and the merits of these proposed laws DO play a part in this. You and the freeloading community simply hold a different viewpoint. You oppose copyright, you don't feel that obtaining a perfect digital copy of something of value for nothing is wrong, I get it. That the population wants to get free stuff rather than pay for it, is not a compelling argument to me... or the Senators that voted unanimously to send the Protect IP and Felony Streaming bills out of committee. Instead of acting like a little bitch, why not pull up your big boy pants, reach into your pocket and pay for a subscription to Netflix and Hulu? Or... heaven forbid... do without, if you can't afford it.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Having a blog is your definition of success or failure? Actually without me and a couple of others, this blog would be one huge echo chamber. For the most part, Masnick posts his slanted view on things and the legion bootlicking sycophants crawls out of the woodwork to agree with his view and rail against "the man". Were it not for us, the only controversy would be over whose turn it is to kiss Masnick's ass.

Regarding your snivel that the government only hears the voices of the monopolists, I'd inquire whether you'd ever heard of EFF, CDT or Public Knowledge? Those groups are very busy advocating you point of view in DC. Do you support the mission financially or are you are freeloader there too? Have you visited your Senators and Congressman's district office to make your views known?

I'd bet 90% of you are simply content to log in here to complain and spin conspiracy theories. I'd be interested to know how much (if anything) Techdirt donates to these groups that are fighting for your so-called digital rights. Like most of you, I'll bet it's either insignificant to zero.

Re: Re: Re:

"Truthfulness and the merits of these proposed laws DO play a part in this."

Yes, because somehow you are more moral than everyone else simply because you said so.

"That the population wants to get free stuff rather than pay for it, is not a compelling argument to me."

You get the air you breath for free, that's not a compelling argument that we should pass laws that prohibit such a thing.

"or the Senators that voted unanimously to send the Protect IP and Felony Streaming bills out of committee."

IP maximists and legislators lie and they censor criticisms a whole lot more than IP abolitionists yet IP maximists consider their opinions to be the only valid ones simply because they have political power.

"Instead of acting like a little bitch"

Look who's talking. 95+ year copy protection lengths, you selfish people practically get everything you want, and you keep complaining that you want more.

Re: Re: Re:

"Instead of acting like a little bitch, why not pull up your big boy pants, reach into your pocket and pay for a subscription to Netflix and Hulu? Or... heaven forbid... do without, if you can't afford it."

Instead of trying to steal money from monopoly rents that you're not entitled to, why not find another job.

Re: Re: Re:

"why not pull up your big boy pants, reach into your pocket and pay for a subscription to Netflix and Hulu? Or... heaven forbid... do without, if you can't afford it."

Why should people be forced to pay for something (or be restricted from freely making copies) when there is no moral reason they should have to. Why should the law stop people from freely doing something that's not wrong?

It's little different than the law preventing us from freely breathing the air we breath. There is nothing wrong with it, just like there is absolutely nothing wrong with copying. Even the founding fathers agreed here. People shouldn't be forced to pay for something when there is nothing wrong with not paying for it. It's immoral to force people to pay for something that they shouldn't have to pay for.

If you don't like it, don't offer Netflex. Don't create content. Stop profiting off of the copy protections that you receive from content that others make. Find another job instead.

Re: Re: Re:

> DannyB was nowhere to be seen in the past,
> suddenly his stuff is the editor's choice
> for best comments, and he is doing the weekly
> best

So?
What are you suggesting?

I can't show up here, post like everyone else, happen to share others' opinions, and get picked to write the weekly best?

I had lurked here off and on for awhile. Then I signed up and posted infrequently. Then I started posting more frequently in recent weeks. I picked it up now that it appears SCO may actually disappear. Finally.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"Having a blog is your definition of success or failure? "

Reading comprehension fail, you failure. Having a successful blog that can capture a large audience.

"Regarding your snivel that the government only hears the voices of the monopolists, I'd inquire whether you'd ever heard of EFF, CDT or Public Knowledge? Those groups are very busy advocating you point of view in DC."

Yet we still have ridiculously long copy protection lengths, so apparently the government isn't paying much attention to them, which is the point.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

@AC

"Truthfulness and the merits of these proposed laws DO play a part in this.

Yes, because somehow you are more moral than everyone else simply because you said so."

I do not take something of value from another without compensation. While I don't stand on a soapbox proclaiming my moral superiority, I do believe that infringing behavior is both illegal and immoral, though in the grand scheme of things, there are many worse examples.

""That the population wants to get free stuff rather than pay for it, is not a compelling argument to me."

You get the air you breath for free, that's not a compelling argument that we should pass laws that prohibit such a thing."

The air I breathe isn't the result of people spending years of their lives and millions of dollars to create. This is an awfully stupid argument, even for you"

"or the Senators that voted unanimously to send the Protect IP and Felony Streaming bills out of committee."

IP maximists and legislators lie and they censor criticisms a whole lot more than IP abolitionists yet IP maximists consider their opinions to be the only valid ones simply because they have political power."

That's simply untrue. The legions of lobbyists from the search engines and professional apologist groups like CDT, PK and EFF are all the Hill. But their arguments are weak and feckless. These groups actually do a fairly good job on policy matters. And no one is censoring anybody you big crybaby. All of these groups have blogs, put out video, write op/ed's, amicus briefs and tons of letters to legislators. They have no traction because no one is buying their bullshit.

"Instead of acting like a little bitch"

"Look who's talking. 95+ year copy protection lengths, you selfish people practically get everything you want, and you keep complaining that you want more."

What good is a law without the means for enforcement? This is about enforcing the law, not expanding the tenure of copyright.

"Or... heaven forbid... do without, if you can't afford it."

"Instead of passing oppressive laws, why not find another job."

Total non sequitor. My point was that we're talking about entertainment. Not food, not medicine. Entertainment. You won't die or even suffer if you can't get immediate free access to whatever you want to watch or listen to. Try it some time. Billions of people seem to manage somehow.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

You should circle back and get some talking points from Masnick. You're way off of the reservation and looking like a complete dolt.

Totally laughable rants like this only make your side look worse (if it's possible) and if you aspire to be one of Masnick's piss-boys you have to make something of a reasoned argument.

Pay some attention to the writings of Jay and Marcus who have recently been knighted into The Royal Order of the Brown Nose. But, stay away from the eejit who is still stuck in court jester status, despite his obsequious pandering.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

FTFY.... the real issue isn't the arguments, it's the amount of monetary 'persuasion' that accompanies them...

EFF... Here are why these laws are destroying our culture, we hope you will understand the issues, do the right things, and pass reasonable laws.

**AA... Here's a boatload of cash, a boat, and a nice 'massage therapist' for you to enjoy while you spend the week in our tropical resort hideaway. We expect you will see things from our point of view... (if you don't we'll be using the video footage recorded at our resort hideaway... we didn't even know that was possible with a schnauzer)

*Maximalism translator*

" You and the freeloading community simply hold a different viewpoint. "

Translation: I have no argument except to once again return to a rhetorical ad hominem attack on a strawman group that represents no one but my own perceived notion of ingrievances.

" That the population wants to get free stuff rather than pay for it, is not a compelling argument to me."

Translation: The argument that I fail to see or adhere to is the concept of finding ways of doing business, rather than relying on the bureacracy of government to "protect" my way of doing business, through the increase of ex officio powers of state, useless raids of physical product, overstepping of constitutional freedoms, and domain "hacking" to support a return to decades long gone.

"Senators that voted unanimously to send the Protect IP and Felony Streaming bills out of committee."

Translation: We'll spare no expense to support blocking new technology rather than utilize the technology for our own bottom line.

"pay for a subscription to Netflix and Hulu?"

Translation: We support others utilizing technology that no politician would ever understand. Meanwhile, if someone else wants to use this, they can only use it the way that the current large companies can, supporting the status quo.

"do without, if you can't afford it."

Translation: If you're a 3rd party competitor, work with the industry or go out of business. We have government on our side to dictate what you do on the internet. You are SOL.

*As the $Buck turns*

Like everyone else, AC or otherwise, I have my own opinion. You're free to disagree, especially when you're paid to maintain your ignorance of the problems with copyright law. I guess now that you have nothing else on the subject, you'll once again resort to totally irrelevant attacks instead of actually answering the problems of the statements you make.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

It's not taking, it's making a copy, and if you don't want people copying you without compensating you then simply don't do things that you don't want them to freely copy.

"The air I breathe isn't the result of people spending years of their lives and millions of dollars to create. This is an awfully stupid argument, even for you"

Just because someone spent a million dollars digging a hole at the beach gives them no right to then prevent others from walking over or filling up that hole. What you do with your time and money is your problem, don't make it anyone else's. Your argument is a stupid one, though it's not as stupid as many of the IP maximist arguments I've seen in the past.

"What good is a law without the means for enforcement? This is about enforcing the law, not expanding the tenure of copyright."

Enforcing laws that shouldn't exist to begin with.

"Total non sequitor. My point was that we're talking about entertainment. Not food, not medicine. Entertainment. You won't die or even suffer if you can't get immediate free access to whatever you want to watch or listen to. Try it some time. Billions of people seem to manage somehow."

So then maybe the government should be spending its resources on more important things beyond passing oppressive laws.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Your lies are as laughable as the pathetic arguments you bring to the table. . Your suggestion that lawmakers considering these bills accept bribes is pure fiction and a desperate response to the fact that your line of persuasion is an abject failure.

Re: *Maximalism translator*

That's very good jay. You received high marks for using the words "straw man" "ex officio" and "ad hominem" but you forgot to use "conflating" Nonetheless, I'm guessing Mike will reward you with a pat on the head or maybe even let you come over and detail his car. Congrats!!

Re: *As the $Buck turns*

"Like everyone else, AC or otherwise, I have my own opinion. You're free to disagree, especially when you're paid to maintain your ignorance of the problems with copyright law. I guess now that you have nothing else on the subject, you'll once again resort to totally irrelevant attacks instead of actually answering the problems of the statements you make."

hahaha, Jay you one of many servile toadys that forms the Masnick echo chamber. C'mon, a knight in the Royal Order of the Brown Nose? You didn't get that honor because you maintain autonomy over your own testicles.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

I do not take something of value from another without compensation.

You write in support of taking works of art and literature away from the public domain. Is that not stealing? Is that not breaking the explicit contract those artists, composers and writers had with the public when the works were created?

I do believe that infringing behavior is both illegal and immoral,

The millions who are freely sharing "copyrighted" content do not agree that it is immoral. As to illegality, I'll agree with Augustine - "An unjust law is no law at all."

What good is a law without the means for enforcement?

What good is a law that cannot be enforced without harming innocents?

My point was that we're talking about entertainment. Not food, not medicine.

And yet we hear the same arguments from the same groups of IP maximalists about both food and medicines when it comes to patents.

C'mon Jay. Your whole maximalism translator rant was a kvetch about the slow adoption of technology and business models. I'm going to even give you a little gift: The industry needs to move faster toward a more a la carte distribution system. There. Take that gem back to your liege lord. I'll bet you may even get named "Lickspittle Of The Week".

But none of that justifies a tolerance for infringing. And the industry is changing (Netflix, Hulu, MLB and NBA online) it will take awhile. That shouldn't mean anything goes because you can't have whatever you want the moment you want it. And it needs to be paid for too. The shit costs money to produce, like it or not.

Re:

" Your whole maximalism translator rant was a kvetch about the slow adoption of technology and business models. I'm going to even give you a little gift: The industry needs to move faster toward a more a la carte distribution system."

It sure was. The technology IS out and out of Bittorrent or newer distribution models out there, there's only a handful of companies that are actively looking towards that solution.

As I mentioned before, HBO has HBO plus, where people can see episodes of their choosing a week earlier. Despite the piracy, they're making money. The industry IS moving as I've explained before.

"But none of that justifies a tolerance for infringing. "
Just do one thing. Just one. Name some non biased studies that actually show a problem with piracy over the years. To the point that the artists, that you're supposed to represent in some capacity, are losing money.

"And the industry is changing (Netflix, Hulu, MLB and NBA online) it will take awhile."

It sure doesn't need to. And all of those companies ignore the world market.

"That shouldn't mean anything goes because you can't have whatever you want the moment you want it."

Ok, if those you represent don't want "infringements" don't post up anything. See how much money they lose then.

" And it needs to be paid for too."
Stopping others from enjoying entertainment is a great way to make money for your business. /s

" The shit costs money to produce, like it or not."
So? The industry may still think they're in the DVD business, but that's changing now that hard drives are cheaper and larger. Does that mean the Western Digitals and Seagates should pony up money to Hollywood because they can't get their act together?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Even capturing a large audience isn't really complex. It only takes that you are able to spew the type of crap that the online masses will get behind.

The biggest traffic time for Techdirt? It isn't about copyright, or trademark, or even piracy. No, it was back when the naked scanner at the airport thing was playing out. Since then, the site is in decline.

Much of the traffic comes from the same kids who visit 4chan, read torrent freak, and spend their lives botting up views of their amazing videos on youtube. Very few of those 'tards post here.

Techdirt has found the perfect formula to bring them in, promises of bread and circuses for all. It's a very old method, really.

""But none of that justifies a tolerance for infringing. "
Just do one thing. Just one. Name some non biased studies that actually show a problem with piracy over the years. To the point that the artists, that you're supposed to represent in some capacity, are losing money."

Jay please. You know as well as I do that any study I cite will be immediately decried as biased. And any study you put up there will torn apart too.

On another matter, Your mindless advocacy has hit some real high notes recently. I am going to contact Masnick and nominate you for "Lickspittle of the Week". As you know that means your name will be memorialized here under the heading: "Jay's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week". Please consider showing some love for the Knights of the Royal Order of the Brown Nose posts.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Jay. You make it very difficult to resist the temptation to call you a drooling imbecile. Exactly which bill DOES the average citizen have a say in? To the best of my knowledge, congressmen and senators debate and vote on bills, not average citizens. That's wht we elect them to do. BTW, how big was the check you wrote to EFF, PK and/or CDT to lobby on this issue?

Re:

That's kinda funny considering no one has "debunked" the gao report nor criticized the media piracy report. Are you trying or have you given up already? Seriously, you're starting to repeat your insults. It would be funny if it weren't so sad. Also, the search button is on the top right. See for yourself.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"It only takes that you are able to spew the type of crap that the online masses will get behind."

IOW, you're a failure either because you can't come up with an opinion reasonable enough to convince many people that your opinion is right or because you can't express your opinion well enough to convince others. No one believes your garbage because your opinion is as worthless as you are.

Re: Re: Re: *As the $Buck turns*

There are some attention-grabbing closing dates in this article however I don’t know if I see all of them heart to heart. Theres some validity however I will take maintain opinion till I look into it further. Good article , thanks and we want more!